AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R5 M430 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the data shows a narrow victory for the AMD Radeon R5 M430. The Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034, giving the Radeon a 2.3% advantage. This is a slim margin, and the FirePro W4170M’s own benchmark entry of 5034 places it within 0.3% of the Radeon's average score of 5018, indicating the two are effectively peers in raw compute workloads. The deltaPct in the head-to-head is -2.3% from the FirePro's perspective, meaning it trails by that amount in this single test. However, the FirePro W4170M does not have a Vulkan benchmark result in the data, whereas the Radeon R5 M430 also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4884, which is notably lower than its OpenCL result. This suggests the Radeon’s OpenCL lead may not translate across all API workloads, though the lack of a FirePro Vulkan score prevents a direct comparison.

In the broader context of nearest rivals, both cards occupy the 30th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W4170M’s nearest rival list includes the Radeon R5 M430 (0.3% ahead), the Radeon R7 M340 (-0.6% behind), the Radeon R7 240 (-0.6% behind), and the Radeon R7 Graphics (0.7% ahead). The Radeon R5 M430’s list mirrors this, with the FirePro W4170M at -0.3%, the Radeon R7 Graphics at 0.4% ahead, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 at 0.8% ahead, and the Radeon R7 M340 at -0.9% behind. These deltas are all under 1%, reinforcing that the two cards are statistically indistinguishable in aggregate performance. The Radeon R5 M430 wins the head-to-head count 1-0, but the margin is too small to call a decisive victory. The data suggests that in OpenCL compute tasks, the Radeon has a slight edge, but the FirePro’s average score (5034) versus the Radeon’s average (5018) actually shows the FirePro ahead by 0.3% when using the geometric mean across all benchmarks. This discrepancy—the Radeon wins the single head-to-head test, yet the FirePro has a higher average across their respective benchmark suites—highlights the sensitivity of these results to workload selection.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M has an average benchmark score of 5034, while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 has an average of 5018. This puts the FirePro 0.3% ahead in aggregate performance, despite the Radeon winning the sole head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test specifically?

A: The Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152, beating the FirePro W4170M’s 5034 by 2.3%. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, and the margin is narrow enough to be within normal run-to-run variance.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 M430 have any benchmark advantage outside of OpenCL?

A: Yes, the Radeon R5 M430 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4884, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 5152. The FirePro W4170M has no Vulkan benchmark data, so no comparison is possible for that API.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for both GPUs?

A: Both the AMD FirePro W4170M and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 are in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they sit at the same performance tier relative to the broader market.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The FirePro W4170M uses 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the Radeon R5 M430 uses 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Both are built on the same 28 nm process, giving them identical transistor densities of 12.3M / mm².

Q: Are there any differences in API support?

A: No, both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The API feature sets are identical, so software compatibility is the same.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture and use the same 28 nm process from TSMC, but they are different chips with distinct characteristics. The FirePro W4170M is based on the Opal chip, while the Radeon R5 M430 uses the Jet chip. The Opal chip is larger and more complex: it contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, compared to the Jet’s 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This size difference translates into a meaningful gap in compute resources. The FirePro W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The Radeon R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro’s extra 64 shading units and 4 additional TMUs give it a theoretical compute advantage, reflected in its higher pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 691.2 GFLOPS, compared to the Radeon’s 547.2 GFLOPS—a 26% difference in raw shader math.

The memory subsystems also diverge architecturally. The FirePro W4170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M430 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a fourfold difference in memory bandwidth, which is a critical architectural distinction. The FirePro’s GDDR5 memory runs at 1000 MHz with an effective 4 Gbps data rate, while the Radeon’s DDR3 also runs at 1000 MHz but with an effective 2 Gbps rate. The FirePro’s wider bus and faster memory type make it far better suited for bandwidth-intensive workloads. The Radeon’s larger frame buffer (4 GB vs 2 GB) is its only memory advantage, but the narrow DDR3 bus severely limits how quickly that memory can be accessed. The clock speeds also differ: the FirePro has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, while the Radeon runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. The FirePro’s higher clocks, combined with more shaders and TMUs, explain its superior fill rates and compute throughput.

In terms of form factor and integration, the FirePro W4170M is an MXM module, while the Radeon R5 M430 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor). The FirePro is a discrete, replaceable module, whereas the Radeon is designed for soldered integration into a motherboard. Neither GPU has a TDP listed in the data, nor do they have power connectors (the Radeon lists null for connectors). Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, which is narrower than a typical x16 slot but consistent for mobile parts. The display outputs for both are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they rely on the host laptop’s panel and ports. The production status for both is “End-of-life,” indicating neither is currently in active production.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification except for the manufacturing process and API support. The most significant differences are in memory configuration. The FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, achieving only 16.00 GB/s. The memory clock is 1000 MHz for both, but the effective data rate is 4 Gbps for the FirePro and 2 Gbps for the Radeon. This yields a 4x bandwidth advantage for the FirePro.

Compute resources also differ substantially. The FirePro W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Radeon R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro’s pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and its texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro and 547.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon. Clock speeds differ: FirePro base is 825 MHz and boost is 900 MHz, while the Radeon base is 780 MHz and boost is 855 MHz.

The chip and package details are distinct as well. The FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the Radeon R5 M430 uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Transistor density is identical at 12.3M / mm². The FirePro is an MXM module, while the Radeon is an IGP. The FirePro has no power connectors, and the Radeon lists null for that field. The generation names differ: FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) for the FirePro, and Gem System (R5 M400) for the Radeon. Release dates are not comparable, as the FirePro has a release date of 2015-04-22, while the Radeon has no release date listed. The FirePro’s predecessor and successor are FirePro Mobility and Radeon Pro Mobile, respectively, while the Radeon’s are Solar System and Polaris Mobile. Both have a bus interface of PCIe 3.0 x8 and identical API support (DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4170M wins in raw compute and memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth is four times higher than the Radeon R5 M430’s 16.00 GB/s DDR3 bandwidth, making it the clear choice for workloads that are memory-bound, such as large texture reads, physics simulations, or data-parallel compute tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 691.2 GFLOPS is 26% higher than the Radeon’s 547.2 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s exceeds the Radeon’s 17.10 GTexel/s. The FirePro also has higher pixel rate (7.200 vs 6.840 GPixel/s) and more shading units (384 vs 320), TMUs (24 vs 20), and a higher boost clock (900 MHz vs 855 MHz). For compute-heavy professional workloads, the FirePro’s specifications are superior across the board.

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins in the only direct benchmark comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 5152 versus the FirePro’s 5034, a 2.3% lead. It also has a Vulkan score of 4884, which, while lower than its OpenCL score, indicates it can run Vulkan workloads—something the FirePro has no data for. The Radeon also has twice the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), which may be advantageous for applications that require larger working sets, provided the lower bandwidth is sufficient. Its DDR3 memory is slower, but the extra capacity could help with multi-tasking or larger textures in less bandwidth-sensitive scenarios.

For use-case selection, the FirePro W4170M is the better choice for engineering, scientific, or content-creation tasks that rely on memory bandwidth and shader throughput. Its MXM form factor also suggests it was designed for professional mobile workstations where replaceability and serviceability matter. The Radeon R5 M430, being an IGP, is suited for mainstream laptops where the larger 4 GB frame buffer can help with basic multimedia and light gaming, and where the lower memory bandwidth is acceptable. The benchmark data shows the Radeon has a slight edge in OpenCL, but the FirePro’s higher average score (5034 vs 5018) and superior memory subsystem make it the more capable part for sustained, bandwidth-intensive workloads. The 0.3% delta in average scores is negligible, so the decision should be driven by the specific workload characteristics: memory bandwidth favors the FirePro, while raw OpenCL scores and memory capacity favor the Radeon.